So you agree that 1 person is not enough to develop dungeons? Then I guess you shouldn't be so happy with Bethesda as the developer of Oblivion, because that's what they chose. Which is the entirety of my point, that the division of labor a lot more fractured than you'd think. If Bethesda has a 100 man team, 9 of them is 9%, and as a usable figure, about a tenth of their work force. Even IF dragons are the main focus of their game, there are still innumerable other aspects of the game to design, such as armor, weapons, animation, dungeons, exteriors, AI, creatures, races, lore, alchemy, magic, ranged combat, stealth...I could go on. Obviously some of these can be taken care of by 1 or 2 guys. But many others need a solid team of at least 3+, but probably not more than 5. So if you have 9 guys working on dragons, you have potentially 4 groups that are missing a guy, or anywhere from 1-4 groups that don't exist. And instead you have 9 guys picking their noses, getting bored, making origami footballs because there's really only so much you can put into one feature, no matter how large it is.

You said:

referring to someone saying we'd only see dragons once in Elder Scrolls games. So you were saying that Bethesda wouldn't hire nine people for two years to only use dragons in one game. Then you changed that to say:

So now you're saying they wouldn't only use the technology behind it once, and could use it on some other creature, so we may only see dragons once. I'd say those are two opposing thoughts.

Id give up dragons for spell creation, even though I think its going to make it in.

I'd give up all the dragons in the game for just one that could grant me any wish. I'd even go searching for 7 mystical balls to summon it too.

Nope, sorry. Dragons represent an actual coherent and interesting and imaginative storyline potential for this game, and I wouldn't trade that for anything after last time's story attempt.

You can't possibly say you would take out the entire plot of a game to intricate a feature into it. If anything this argument should be along the lines of getting rid of somethin like dual wield for mounted combat. And even then id still want dual wield. I'm sorry but it's absolutely insulting to the developers of this game to say you would throw out the entire story driven aspect of the game for a stupid ass spear or mounted combat!!!! Come on now!

Did I? Am I?

No... I said, "They don't pay nine guys for two years to create something they will only use once."; and that's precisely what I meant. (and you quoted it word for word. :shrug:)

Yep, you said that in response to someone saying that we'd only see dragons once. So even if you didn't mean to, you implied that we'd see dragons more than once since they paid nine guys two years salary to create them. :shrug:

Oh come on now, do you really think that the guys that worked on dragons basically finished it after a year, and then sat around for the other year doing nothing? It's one thing to suggest that maybe Bethesda could have devoted their energies elsewhere... it's quite another to suggest that they should have done so because they weren't doing [i]anything/i].

Again... No. The shape of the mesh is moot.

I don't mean to insult them, but I do want to remind them what set's TES apart from every. Single. Other. Game. If they think they've got a monopoly on epic storylines because I'm supposed to be some hero who's the only who can stop the dragons, they're dead wrong. I've played the "only one who can save us" in almost every single game, ever.

What TES has done that no other game has is given us a world where we can do anything. So, I guess I would like ONE dragon, but not a whole cadre of them at the expense of a half dozen other features.

What does getting rid of dragons do? Well...it get's rid of dragons. You can still join the fighter's guild, the mage's guild, make potions, hunt deer, raise skeletons, raid random dungeons, explore unseen areas. 90% of the game has nothing to do with dragons. And I would like to see that 90% fleshed out, rather than skimped over for a single feature.



I was using hyperbole. I'm sure they continued to work very hard on dragons. But at what point are they finished with the necessary stuff, and have added just plain cool stuff, and then going back over it again ad nauseum? I can't imagine these guys are staying late sweating out all the different things that dragons need to do. Personally I'm surprised they even have guys devoted to them, specifically. I would think they would just have each department spend their own time on them, like you would for any other creature, obviously just longer. I should actually listen to the podcast and see what exactly Todd says about what resources were devoted to them.

Oh please. This is the sort of one-up-manship one only finds on the internet. Even if Gizmo wasn't entirely clear in his first post, he then clarified that he intended to be talking about the technology behind the dragons.

So perhaps he didn't clearly distinguish what he meant from the other possibility: that future TES games will feature dragons. Big deal.

Edit: just realised I used "he" - sorry, Gizmo, if I should have used "she".

I challenge you to look through my posts and come up with a series of quotes that's pegs me as a staunch Oblivion lover. I judge Bethesda based on the whole of their presentation and not on single elements. I loved all three of Bethesda's last three games for different reasons. Being a professional tradesman I'm not even remotely arrogant enough to presume to tell professionals how to do their job.



Let me ask you a question. How many AAA development teams have you directed in your game development career? Sure, one can be outside of the profession and still anolyze but only with all of the statistics before them. Quite frankly neither of us are in a position to determine how many people should do what and in the absence of complete data any anolysis is flawed anyway and therefor invalid.

I wasn't one-upping him, I was telling him what his original post implied. Feel free to get off your high horse.

So... you know the ins and outs of game development? You understand team cohesion and how it works in game developers, specifically in a project as specific as Skyrim?

If you do please tell us, because it'd be fascinating to hear from an insider from the industry. If not, then please not speak in such a way that proposes your expertise in a field that the developers are a part of.

Getting rid of the dragons doesn't necessarily just get rid of the dragons.
It potentially furthers stopping Alduin who is Akatosh from eating the world again and returning to the Dawn anew through a new kalpa. Which, funnily enough, has been the status quo, making it uncertain whether the Dragonborn is really a protagonist or whether he's just a pretentious "savior" gumming up the works by trying to follow in the footsteps of the Greedy Man.

And frankly while I am by no means fond of the potential of skimming off the whole rest of the game for the main quest, I think we both know that's not really a reality. Bits and pieces, yes. But not the whole thing, or even a respectable minority.

Anyone who doesn't want to see the first Dragon in an Elder Scrolls game (especially ones so well implemented) for stuff that is more than likely mod/expansion content at best is absolutely daft.

Well, 2nd, to be technical.

I never count Redguard. Ever.

The main point of this game will be dragons...take em out and what do we have left? A bunch of snowy mountains with no big awesome dragons to guard them.

If you can find a single part of what I said that seems illogical to you, I will support it with an argument. Otherwise, I don't know what you expect me to say. And even though my interest in game development is only casual and not professional, I take the thought process very seriously, and I do consider how I would manage a team. And I still maintain that a tenth of your workforce is probably too much for one aspect, especially one as narrow as dragons. Even combat, which includes fighting said dragons, in addition to every other NPC and creature, is not deserving of 9% of Bethesda's staff. The type of game it is just requires too many separate variables.

Now, we don't know if we have mounted combat, specific weapons, or a dozen other things that MANY fans have asked, nay, begged for. Maybe we do. Maybe Todd doesn't want to talk about stuff that is going to be in a magazine 4 months from now. But I can tell you, from a professional standpoint, that if I alienated even a fraction of my fan base by not listening to their (reasonable) requests, in favor of a gimmick that was meant to attract new players or simply add to the "awesome" factor, I think I would be making a mistake. Also, I can give reasons why spears, mounted combat, werewolves, boats, and fast travel options are "reasonable" and in fact, quite important aspects of a game like the Elder Scrolls.

@ ThatOneGuy...oh, what I meant was that removing dragons as a gameplay aspect doesn't effect the game as a whole. As a plot device, yes, they are actually quite important, and in fact Todd made it seem like every game up to this point really is leading up to events in Skyrim. And while the meat of the Elderscrolls does focus on character building and random questing, if they set the game 10 years after the whole dragon thing, it would be pretty upsetting for our characters to have missed that. But, there's no reason that epicness couldn't have been put off until they had figured out how to get a guy on horseback to poke the wolves nipping his heels.

Sorry - I was being a little testy. I guess the rub comes down to your question "when did they finish with the necessary stuff?" 1. Part of this is a fight over what is "necessary". Todd obviously didn't want to put dragons in unless they could do a really good job with them. You say they should have their priorities elsewhere. Fair enough, I'm not sure I've much to add to that debate - I don't think there'll be a unanimous verdict on whether really awesome dragons is a better element for TES to have than spears, werewolves, and mounted combat. 2. Because Bethesda set the bar high for dragons, that means a lot of work. It might have taken them many months before they realised that doing dragons well was feasible, and thus worth their time, and then it might have taken the best part of the rest of those 2 years Todd mentions it took to get the dragons to a point where the devs were happy. It's not at all clear to me that they were finished with something they were happy with fairly quickly, and the rest of the time was spent on little cosmetic things.



Which serves what purpose, given that Gizmo clarified what he/she meant?

This is going to be my last post since we've gone so far off topic, but Gizmo said that his original post implied his "clarification," which it did not. Gizmo's "clarification" post said the exact opposite of his original post (and he didn't seem to be clarifying based on his tone), hence the confusion.

Well, for starters, you're going about this argument the wrong way. First, you're using general statistics about the whole team and breaking it down into exact, percentage-based groups that can manage various projects based on an ASSUMED difficulty. You claim that 9% of the workforce focused on one part of the whole game is a bad idea, and that you should lead them to focus on other pursuits - but what frustrates me is that you have no knowledge whatsoever of what kind of necessarily work was required to accomplish this goal, nor any absolute knowledge of how significant that part (dragons) could really be to the game. So unless you know the exact or even general requirements necessary for game developing professionals to successfully design a series of dragon creatures from their appearances, to their attacks and even their animations and voices, then I'm quite privvy to doubting your expertise in the field and, therefore, your criticism of their team structure. That doesn't even mention that you have NO idea what sort of effort it takes to build the rest of the game, what sort of man power that requires, how everyone is supposed to coordinate their single projects, and further, how everything is meant to translate into the final product. Yet there you are, making EXACT statements about what should go down as if you know exactly what you're talking about.

So is your argument logical? Not really. Maybe to you it does in your own preconceived idea of how developing teams work, or how you THINK you'd do it, but not to me. That doesn't even mention that I completely disagree with you regardless, but I thought you deserved a focus on the premise of your argument instead.

In any case, I'm done.

Bull. :stare:

That post said "clarify" my earlier post (the one I spoke of "what I'd trade for dragons"... that being "combat derived from 'Die by the Sword' ")
And you are right about us straying from theme. Check my post and lets let it drop.

**Edit: Ha, we are even still talking of different posts . The one you mean, I was elaborating for one guy, that asked. That was not meant as a general defensive reply; (the original post was fine as it was).

---

BTW has anyone here played "Die by the Sword"?